"It's A Decentralized Revolution" - Novogratz Sees Bitcoin At $10,000 Within A Year

Former Fortress Principal Michael Novogratz is not shy to share his opinion of virtual currencies. In June he explained "cryptocurrencies were likely the biggest bubble of his lifetime," but remained positively constructive with 20% of his net worth in various coins including Bitcoin and Ethereum as he made billions.

"Novo" - as his friends call him - has had a good run...

And now, in an interview with CNBC, the legendary trader has said that he believes the value of a bitcoin will reach $10,000 in six to 10 months.

As CoinDesk reports, putting his belief into practice, Novogratz, a former principal at investment firm Fortress and an ex-partner at Goldman Sachs, is starting a $500 million fund for cryptocurrencies, token sales and related startups.

Named the Galaxy Digital Asset fund, Novogratz has committed $150 million of his own money to the venture, and aims to raise the rest by January, CNBC reports. The remaining funds will be raised by wealthy individuals and other hedge fund managers.

Rather than focus on a narrow range of cryptocurrencies, the billionaire intends to invest indiscriminately across the industry, or "play the whole ecosystem," he explained.

In an interview with CNBC's Fast Money, Novogratz called the emerging landscape a "revolution," stating:

"I never thought I'd come out of retirement but the space is so exciting right now I decided to build a business, hire a whole bunch of smart guys, and we're gonna to raise a fund ... and hopefully take advantage of what I see as a revolution, actually. A decentralised revolution."

As a store of value, Novogratz likened bitcoin to digital gold, and said the technology is beginning to make "more and more sense" as we move increasingly into the digital.

Novogratz continued to say that, while bitcoin is a bubble, the mania is justified, because it is a technological advancement that promises to fundamentally alter our lives.

"I can hear the herd coming" Novogratz said.

And bubble or not, Novogratz concluded eloquently on the extreme nature of cryptocurrencies' potential...

“Remember, bubbles happen around things that fundamentally change the way we live,” he said.


“The railroad bubble. Railroads really fundamentally changed the way we lived. The internet bubble changed the way we live. When I look forward five, 10 years, the possibilities really get your animal spirits going.”

Bitcoin is set to become "the biggest bubble of our time," he added, and could reach $10,000 very soon due to fast-building interest.


tmosley ThirdWorldDude Wed, 10/11/2017 - 10:30 Permalink

Talk about moving the goalposts.You could just as easily say that real money doesn't rely on things like physical exchange. And indeed, the market would seem to agree with that, as the vast, VAST majority of dollar transactions are electronic, even when carried out face to face.You could just as easily say that gold isn't money by your own definition because it relies on things like scales and purity tests.

In reply to by ThirdWorldDude

YUNOSELL tmosley Wed, 10/11/2017 - 10:49 Permalink

You never know what the future holds, so with the value of cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, the American Dollar as world reserve or gold & silver shooting up when inflation hits -- these all could do predictable things based on market forces, but the real unknown factors are what the governments decide in the future where their decisions will ultimately redistribute wealth to them and the one closest to them that they deem will be most beneficial to ally with. They can outlaw cryptos, and confiscate gold & silver for 'the greater good' as they did in the 1930's. The point of no return has long been passed and governments are now all in to fight market forces as long as they can, but eventually they will fail and there will be a monomental collapse of confidence.

In reply to by tmosley

BuyBitcoinNowO… YUNOSELL Wed, 10/11/2017 - 14:15 Permalink

The fact that you could move billions across countries seamlessly thanks to Bitcoin should tell you how it's worth more than gold. Outlawing cryptos is irrelevant, you could still adquire them in the black market and use them and they couldn't still confiscate what you own assuming you aren't a retard. Not to mention there will always be governments that benefit from being Bitcoin friendly due simple game theory, which is where all the rich Bitcoin holders will be chilling on their BTC-bought villas.Smart millenials will be moving millions worth of Bitcoin left and right while your dumb boomer asses get 1930'd one more time, wishing you bought Bitcoin while the bond market collapses. You simply can't be helped. Then again, the physical fact that we are going to get insanely rich includes laggards like the retards on the Zerohedge comment section.

In reply to by YUNOSELL

Winston Churchill Ramesees Wed, 10/11/2017 - 10:19 Permalink

Because it is not anonymous, whatever the btc pumpers say.SIGINT and PATINT does not need to decrypt anything, the internet is run on DARPA patents,and if the worst comes to the worst,the PTB will just turn off the internet to retain their power.A couple  of hundred million dead in colateral damage will not bother them at all.Psychopathy 101.

In reply to by Ramesees

tmosley Consuelo Wed, 10/11/2017 - 11:00 Permalink

Your tinfoil is also a bit crooked.If it was about control, they never would have introduced the concept of "mining". The coins would be centrally issued, and would have no actual method in place to control the amount issued. In fact, they wouldn't have changed anything at all, because the system they had WORKED, and even if they thought it would collapse, they would just issue another currency in exchange for the old one at a 1000-1 ratio or whatever. There have been many instances in history of that actually working.

In reply to by Consuelo

malek tmosley Wed, 10/11/2017 - 11:46 Permalink

"Talk about moving the goalposts." (your quote)

Even with mining the coins were still centrally issued (by the mathematical model chosen for bitcoin), just not identified from the beginning.

Have you ever successfully mined a bitcoin?
Does/would the answer to that question change your perception on using bitcoin?? Thought so.

In reply to by tmosley

fbazzrea Raffie Wed, 10/11/2017 - 11:24 Permalink

Annualized estimated global mining costs $1,008,539,155Electricity consumed per transaction (KWh): 219Number of U.S. households that could be powered by bitcoin: 1,867,665Number of U.S. households powered for one day by a single BTC transaction: 7.39https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumptioncryptocurrencies are a great idea and have much merit but these early examples are not sustainable in a world of limited energy resources and growing population.

In reply to by Raffie

tmosley fbazzrea Wed, 10/11/2017 - 11:53 Permalink

Those stats sound like hocum to me.I did a few transactions in BTC the other day via Shapeshift. The total fee for each transaction was about $10, where that included me sending altcoins to the exchange, the exchange fee, and the fee for bitcoins coming back to me.If each BTC transaction ALONE uses 219 KWh of electricity, then the BTC portion alone should have been at least $10, assuming a heavily subsidized electricity rate. More like $20 worth where I live. 

In reply to by fbazzrea

fbazzrea tmosley Wed, 10/11/2017 - 12:29 Permalink

the fees per transaction ARE subsidized by the miners. that's the point. it is an energy inefficient process. once the miners no longer are motivated to provide the energy backbone for the BTC network because the remaining BTC supply is exhausted, transaction costs will explode.check out the website. sounds pretty legit to me. this is not the only source. it was just graphically simple.

In reply to by tmosley

J S Bach Ramesees Wed, 10/11/2017 - 10:27 Permalink

Real "money" has to be:• a viable medium of exchange• trusted by all• fungible - that is, a physical thing of value capable of being pocketedOur paper dollars as well as Bitcoin fit the first two definitions at the present time, but being mere "ideas", their value and trust will inevitably wane as time and corruption take their toll.  Gold, silver or any other physical rare commodity hold all THREE definitions and therefore, will ALWAYS be a viable medium of exchange, trusted and fungible.  This is why "goldbugs" think the way they do.  The smart ones know that owning gold and silver is not about hitting it big with some kind of hyper-monetary catstrophe, but rather as a safe haven storage of their wealth - impervious to the sinister machinations of the usurers.

In reply to by Ramesees

wise_owl_says... tmosley Wed, 10/11/2017 - 11:11 Permalink

gold and silver has been and always will be most trusted form of exchange on planet. most famous people of history were buried with it. tested and proved for thousands of years. tmosley snake oil selling mental diarrea mouth and cryptos have been around for less than 10, i suppose you can be buried with your paper wallet. your legacy will fade away with your crypto. my childrens, children will know what weight and feel of gold, silver, including lead (a special metal reserved for lying progressive self loathing shithole makers as yourself) is. 

In reply to by tmosley

cro_maat J S Bach Wed, 10/11/2017 - 11:16 Permalink

But the fiat FRN is not trusted by all, just ask the Brics nations or 99% of ZH'ers. Even gold and silver are not trusted by all.I think you should look again at the definition of "fungible". It essentially means interchangeable as in all units of the "money" has to be interchangeable. Most crypto passes this test.In an age where governments and multinational corporations (redundant I know) are more and more run by pscho-paths who care little for individual life, crypto-currencies take on greater value due to portability, decentralised verification, privacy as well as a technology stack that includes smart contracts is open-source in many cases and if the crypto-currency truly serves a distinct community will continue to evolve and add functionality (as well as disrupt entire industries).

In reply to by J S Bach